HorsesAss.Org

And editorial in today’s Seattle Times endorses the inevitable: moving to all mail-in voting. Mail-in ballots are unquestionably popular with voters, accounting for about 70 percent of ballots cast statewide in last November’s election, and one by one, counties are eliminating polling places in an effort to save money and streamline the process.

The mushrooming popularity of absentee voting has made elections a cumbersome, two-tier process. It only makes sense to embrace the method endorsed by voters.

It might make sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the editorial prompted a pissy response from our friends at (un)Sound Politics, who seem to view any effort to increase voter convenience and participation as a threat to democracy. Truth is, I’m not a huge fan of mail-in voting myself; I love going to the polls, and I’m not entirely comfortable with the electoral implications of extending voting day over a period of several weeks. I also share some legitimate concerns over the integrity of mail-in ballots. But despite my misgivings, a move to an all mail-in election would have some huge advantages, not the least of which being the elimination of electronic voting machines, and the opportunity for massive, untraceable fraud that they represent.

Regardless of the pros and cons, the move is inevitable; once WA extended mail-in voting to all comers, there was no turning back, and voters are quickly making polling places obsolete. WA will eventually follow Oregon and become an all mail-in state, so rather than whine about change I don’t like, I’ll just have to accept the “will of the people” and focus on making mail-in voting as secure, accurate and accessible as possible. I’d suggest critics of mail-in voting from the other side of the ideological spectrum do the same.

UPDATE:
Surprise! Yet another prediction comes true: Stefan posts a pissy response to the Times!

Today’s Seattle Times editorial endorsing all-mail balloting is so intellectually dishonest and detached from reality it makes me wonder who these people are that write this nonsense and why the Seattle Times keeps them on the payroll…

He tries to make some kind of point or another about King County’s problems reconciling absentee ballots, but in so doing, purposefully avoids the Times main argument: we have a “cumbersome, two-tier process” that needs to be streamlined. By eliminating the labor intensive polling places, the counties can focus their resources on mail-in ballots.

The NY Times reports today that Karl Rove spoke with Robert Novak as he was preparing his column outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, but that he claims he merely confirmed Novak’s information. Novak had credited two unidentified White House officials as the source for his story.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak’s account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: “I heard that, too.”

Of course, the White House had previously said that it was “ridiculous” to suggest that Rove had leaked information on Plame, and now it has apparently been confirmed that he was a source for both Novak and Time Magazine’s Matt Cooper. Whether Rove’s testimony contradicts that of others (or other evidence,) remains to be seen.

But again, regardless of whether Rove was the primary source, or technically violated any laws, there is little question that he played a part in blowing the cover of both a CIA operative and a front corporation, as part of a campaign to discredit and punish Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. This is not the sort of behavior that should be acceptable from a top White House official.

UPDATE:
Americablog points out that Novak’s previous public statements contradict Rove’s reported testimony:

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

So somebody’s lying.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued a statement today saying he has no plans to retire, and will continue on the bench “as long as my health permits.”

“I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement.”

Of course, rumors of his imminent death will be harder to put to rest. The 80-year-old Rehnquist is battling an aggressive form of thyroid cancer, and has suffered several complications from his radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Whether he steps down this year or the next, it seems unlikely the Chief Justice can survive President Bush’s second term. (Hell… I wonder if any of us can survive Bush’s second term.)

Then again, the U.S. Supreme Court has a well-deserved reputation as one of medical science’s most effective life-support systems. Sitting justices seem to live forever, but Rehnquist has seen several of his former colleagues step down, only to die within months. It kind of reminds me of the Old Testament story of the death of David… as long as Rehnquist continues studying the Constitution, the Angel of Death can’t take him.

The day of the London bombings I asked how the war on terror was going, and few of you responded just fine… with the single caveat that it would be going even better if I were to somehow fall victim to it. Heartwarming. Conventional MSM wisdom (such as it may be) seemed to say that Americans would rally to President Bush in the aftermath of the London attacks… and one of my righty regulars even suggested that public support for Bush’s policies would increase “ten fold.”

Well, excoriate me as a coward, appeaser and traitor if you want, for questioning U.S. policy in Iraq and elsewhere, but it turns out a majority of Americans share my concerns. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken in the days following the attack, Bush’s job approval rating has dropped to its lowest level in over a year, with respondents disapproving of the President’s performance by a 49% to 46% margin.

Even worse for Bush, only 41% of respondents agreed that Bush was “honest and straightforward” — his lowest rating since becoming president, and a drop of nine percentage points since January. I guess that’s what happens when you constantly lie to the American people. And get caught.

Remember, this is no liberal gotcha poll… this the Wall Street Journal, the flagship of the right-wing press. And the poll was conducted just before the Karl Rove allegations exploded in the MSM, so the current controversy isn’t even represented in Bush’s sagging honesty ratings.

Interestingly, support for the President is eroding faster than support for the Iraq War. By a 57% to 42% margin, respondents say it is important to maintain a military presence in Iraq until we finish the job… whatever that may be. Yet Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war by a 55% to 39% margin. Clearly, Americans are starting to question the administration’s honesty about, and execution of the war. And that leaves me in good company.

Washington Defense has relaunched its website devoted to opposing the KVI anti-roads initiative, I-912. While part of the broader coalition opposing I-912, Washington Defense maintains its independence, and is a good source of information and resources regarding the initiative, including a comprehensive, county-by-county breakdown of the projects that I-912 would scuttle.

The following letter was sent by all nine Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, urging President Bush to suspend Karl Rove’s security clearances pending a thorough investigation.

July 13, 2005

President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, one of our critically important responsibilities is to support the individuals who risk their lives as undercover intelligence officers for the United States.

In recent days, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has acknowledged, through his attorney, that he disclosed the identity of an intelligence officer to Matt Cooper, a reporter for Time Magazine. Because this officer was undercover, her identity could only be known through access to classified information.

We abhor the disclosure of the identities of undercover officers. Former President Bush has called those who expose our human sources “the most insidious of traitors.” Ten former intelligence officers signed a letter calling the disclosure of this particular officer’s identify a “shameful and unprecedented event in American history.”

There is ample precedent for suspending the security clearances of people under suspicion of leaking classified information. In addition, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating whether the leak in this case was a felony under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. His investigation is still ongoing.

In light of the above and Mr. Rove’s status as a senior official, we urge you to suspend any and all of Mr. Rove’s security clearances at least until the Fitzgerald investigation is complete.

Sincerely,

Jane Harman
Alcee Hastings
Silvestre Reyes
Leonard Boswell
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr.
Anna G. Eshoo
Rush D. Holt
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
John F. Tierney

It’s really hard to argue with this modest, reasonable request… though I’m sure my righty readers will try.

Just got a press release from Congressman Jay Inslee’s office:

On Thursday morning, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee(WA) will join U.S.Rep. Rush Holt (NJ) and other Members of Congress at a press conference to discuss the introduction of a time-limited Resolution of Inquiry into the compromise of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. The Members will also call for a comprehensive Congressional investigation into the incident and its impact on American intelligence operations.

Finally, at least some attempt to launch a Congressional investigation into this incident, which for the moment appears to be the result of White House dirty tricks… and it’s good to see a WA congressman taking the lead.

If you happen to be hanging around the U.S. Capitol tomorrow morning, the press conference will be in the House TV/Radio Gallery, H-321, from 10:15 am – 10:45 am Eastern.

After its infamously failed effort to spend billions of dollars building five nuclear power plants during the 1970’s — at a time when Washington state was awash in cheap hydro-power — the “Washington Public Power Supply System”, now renamed Energy Northwest, is back proposing another mega-project…” a roughly $1 billion 600-megawatt Western Washington power plant” that would burn coal and petroleum coke.

The emphasis on the word “roughly” is mine, and considering WPPSS history, it’s well deserved. The cost of WPPSS nuclear folly ballooned many times over original projections before it was shut down by voter initiative in the 1980’s, and was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds. So despite a recent record of apparently sound management, the financial underpinnings of this project must be closely scrutinized.

But I’m also disturbed by Energy Northwest’s willingness to embrace coal, at a time we need to be investing more heavily in renewable energy resources like wind. I’m not qualified to prejudge the proposed plant’s new technology, but there seems no dispute that without sequestration, carbon emissions would be twice that of a traditional natural gas powered plant. Considering the growing impact of global warming, wouldn’t it make better sense to invest “roughly” $1 billion in a proven, carbon-free technology like wind power, rather than testing a new technology for burning coal and oil refinery waste?

Energy Northwest deserves some credit for its financial turn-around, and for investing in some green technologies, but a lot of questions remain… not the least of which concern the power consumption projections on which it is justifying the need for this new mega-plant. And a lot of questions need to be answered before we break ground on a new coal-fired powered plant in Western Washington.

President Bush concluded meetings with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore yesterday, by signing the tersely titled “Strategic Framework Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Singapore for a Closer Cooperation Partnership in Defense and Security.” In a joint statement the two hereditary dictators described the Agreement as “a natural step in the expansion of bilateral ties.”

It was born out of a shared desire to address common threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which called for even closer cooperation between the United States and Singapore. The Agreement recognizes Singapore’s role as a Major Security Cooperation Partner and will expand the scope of current cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, joint military exercises and training, policy dialogues, and defense technology.

And just to show how important this “strong U.S.-Singapore partnership” really is, President Bush also took the time yesterday to nominate a new ambassador to Singapore, with unparalleled experience in the areas of counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, joint military exercises and training, policy dialogues, and defense technology… former King County Republican Party chair Patricia Herbold.

Looking at Pat’s resume, it is hard to imagine another person more qualified to serve as ambassador to a strategic partner in the fight against terrorism and WMDs. In addition to a two-year stint as chair of the KCRP, she has also been active in the Bellevue Senior Coed Softball League.

Previously Pat has served as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Clermont County, Ohio, City Councilmember and Mayor of Montgomery, Ohio and was Vice President and General Counsel for Bank One in Dayton, Ohio. Since moving to Washington State she has given her support as a Board Member to the Seattle Art Museum, Long Live the Kings (salmon recovery program), Performing Arts Center Eastside, Downtown Bellevue Tomorrow and other worthwhile causes.

And oh yeah… she’s also served on the steering and/or finance committees for President Bush and ex-Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn… not that this could possibly have had anything to do with her nomination.

UPDATE:
Oh… according to the Seattle Times, maybe this “plum ambassadorship” did have something to do with money after all…

The Herbolds are both important GOP fund-raisers. Patricia Herbold is one of the founding members of The Club for Growth, a powerful national business coalition that supports changes in Social Security. That group collected more than $20 million for Republicans in 2004.

Herbold’s own record is substantial. She has given more than $100,000 to GOP candidates and the state party since 1998, including $25,000 to the joint state victory committee last September.

She contributed more than $61,000 to individual candidates, including Bush. And she gave $17,000 to GOP committees in other states. She was on Bush’s finance committee in 2000.

Robert Herbold has given nearly $20,000 since 1997; he also has been an active fund-raiser.

Ah well… I guess being a major contributor and fundraiser for one authoritarian leader might make you qualified to be ambassador to another.

State Rep. Ed Murray will be the featured guest at Drinking Liberally, which meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Rep. Murray is the chair of the House Transportation Committee, and I’ve got a few questions (and suggestions) for him regarding the fight against I-912. He’s scheduled to arrive around 8:30 PM, but others will be gathering as early as 5:30 to watch the MLB All Star Game. I’ll probably show up around 8, but the place is likely to be crowded, so you may want to arrive earlier to grab a chair.

I have a cousin who works in Washington DC. Yesterday he was having lunch at a popular diner near the White House, and who should sit down at the table next to him… but White House press secretary Scott McClellan. The following is a very revealing snippet of conversation my cousin overheard:

WAITRESS: What can I get you, hun?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked in response to my investigation of the menu, and the investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point and as I have previously stated while that investigation is ongoing, I am not going to comment on it.

WAITRESS: Uh… I was just asking if you were ready to order…

MCCLELLAN: Yes but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation of the menu, and that’s why I said that our policy is not to comment on an ongoing investigation from this table.

WAITRESS: So you need a few more minutes?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question, and I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of this more than the President of the United States, and I think the way to be most helpful is not to be commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That’s why we’re continuing to be following that approach and that policy.

WAITRESS: The President? Will the President be joining you for lunch?

MCCLELLAN: No, that’s not a correct characterization, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and we are not going to get into commenting on an ongoing investigation of the menu.

WAITRESS: But… you just said…

MCCLELLAN: I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation of the menu is complete, I’m just not going to do that. The appropriate time is when the investigation…

WAITRESS: This is ridiculous! If you need more time, I’ll just come back later…

MCCLELLAN: If you’ll let me finish…

WAITRESS: No, you’re not finishing. You’re not saying anything! Do you want to order or not?!

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve responded to the question.

My cousin reports that at this point the waitress dumped a pot of decaf in McClellan’s lap, and moved on to the next table.

From the New York Times:

Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Mr. Rove’s role in the matter.

Um… that’s because, contrary to prior statements, Karl Rove leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer, but he hasn’t been fired. So what’s White House press secretary Scott McClellan supposed to say? “Gee sorry… I guess I lied.”

Actually, reading about yesterday’s White House press briefing just doesn’t do it justice… you’ve got to watch the video (courtesy of Crooks and Liars.) My god… what a weasel:

There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

And I’m guessing the time McClellan plans to talk about it will be a few years from now, during the book tour for his memoir.

It’s fun to watch the White House press corps finally getting a bit pissy after being lied to for all these years.

I was disappointed, though not entirely surprised, to see the anti-roads initiative, I-912, turn in 420,000 signatures on Friday. Barring historically massive signature fraud the measure will surely qualify for the November ballot. But I will not join the gloom-and-doom coming from some opponents, for its passage is no sure thing, and there is an attainable strategy towards defeating I-912: the media must simply do its job.

I don’t mean that it is the media’s job to defeat I-912… I mean that their job is telling voters the truth about what the transportation package means to their local communities. It will take a lot of work and a lot of research, but it’s their responsibility as journalists. And if voters across the state understand exactly what their communities will lose if the transportation package is repealed, then I-912 stands a reasonable chance of being defeated.

Understand first that despite the steady stream of propaganda coming from the initiative’s on-air sponsor KVI, I-912 is likely headed for a big defeat in King County… by an even larger margin than David Irons will be thumped in the race for King County Executive. Irons’ own polling shows I-912 losing by a 55% to 38% margin… 75% to 18% among Democrats. Even a third of KC Republicans oppose the initiative.

And this was a Republican poll designed to “push” some of the questions. Given steady, honest, thorough coverage in the local press, and sufficient paid media, the initiative should be defeated in King County by 10 to 20 points. I’m guessing a similar effort in Snohomish and Pierce, could make those counties a wash, while communities heavily dependent on ferry service will provide a modest margin of defeat.

But it’s Eastern Washington where the MSM really has to step up to the plate and explain the local impact of the transportation package to their local audiences. The package includes hundreds of improvement projects, many of which are intended to fix dangerous roads, intersections and interchanges… high accident areas where people have lost their lives. The package replaces crumbling bridges and other infrastructure, not just in Seattle, but throughout the state… structures whose collapse would not only present a physical danger, but would inflict great economic harm to local communities. The package includes many local projects that local community leaders have spent great time and effort working with their legislators to obtain, and to repeal this package would nix funding for the foreseeable future.

No, we shouldn’t stop trying to refute common misconceptions about the tax side of the equation… we need to repeat and repeat that even with this increase the state gas tax will be at historically average levels in real dollars, and that transportation revenues do indeed flow from the wealthiest, most populated counties towards the rest of the state. But as George Lakeoff argues, if the facts don’t fit the frame, the facts are discarded and the frame stands.

The only way to defeat I-912 is to soften the Yes vote by making voters understand the very real, local transportation projects that they are being asked to repeal. And the only way to achieve this effectively and believably is if voters hear it from their own local media. They need to hear the personal stories of neighbors who lost friends and family on dangerous roads, or of local farmers and other businesses who depend on the roads for the efficient flow of goods to port and market. They need to hear from local business and civic leaders as to how these projects benefit their community.

If this initiative is simply about repealing a tax, then of course it will pass. Nobody likes to pay taxes. But if this initiative is about the local projects that this tax buys, then the transportation package has the opportunity to survive a repeal based on its merits, rather than just anti-government rhetoric.

So to my friends in the media I say it is all up to you. Instead of just covering the politics behind I-912, dig into the package and explain to your audiences the local impact of repeal. I’ll stick my neck out and predict that if you do your job, the initiative will fail. Here is your opportunity to prove me wrong.

I spend an awful lot of time entertaining and informing my loyal readers, and I don’t ask much in return: a little beer money, the occasional fawning e-mail… and of course, your blind obedience in voting the following categories in the Seattle Weekly’s “Best of Seattle” poll:

3. Best local talk radio host: David Goldstein
8. Best local website: Pacific Northwest Portal
9. Best local blog: HorsesAss.org
11. Best activist/hell raiser: David Goldstein
14. Best scandal: Dino Rossi’s meritless election contest
15. Best local cause: ending homelessness
16. Best reform we need: a state income tax
42. Best fish market: Tim Eyman

The deadline is today, at 5 PM, so if you haven’t already done so… cast your ballot now.

Yeah, I know I’ve already asked you once before, and this shameless act of self-promotion is incredibly childish and petty… but then, I never claimed not to be childish and petty. The folks at (un)Sound Politics asked their readers to vote a slate, and frankly I just don’t want to give them the satisfaction of winning. Do you?

Of course you’re always free to vote your conscience, but could you really live with yourself if that lying sack of shit (u)SP won best blog?

One thing that’s pretty clear about WA’s 2006 US Senate campaign, is that whoever the Republican’s dig up to oppose Maria Cantwell, the challenger is almost certain to get the Seattle Times’ endorsement.

Why? Because Times’ publisher Frank Blethen is not only mortal, he’s also a mortal enemy of the death estate tax… and Sen. Cantwell opposes Republican efforts to eliminate the federal estate tax entirely. That’s why, according to the the NY Times, the GOP and its surrogates are already spending money targeting Sen. Cantwell on this issue:

Advocates of repeal have begun showing commercials criticizing senators who oppose repeal, like Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. Many of the criticisms focus on a supposed threat to family farms.

Which is, of course, incredibly dishonest, considering that a Congressional Budget Office report released last week shows that only 300 farms nationwide were subject to the federal estate tax last year, and of these, all but 27 farmers had left enough liquid assets to pay the taxes owed… although the report “hinted that the actual number might be zero.”

And it gets even better for farm heirs.

Next year, when the threshold rises to $2 million per person, just 123 farms will be subject to the estate tax, the study found. And in 2009, when it rises to $3.5 million, only 65 of the nation’s 2.2 million farms will be affected, the study said.

The federal estate tax raised $23.4 billion last year, and repeal would shift burden off the fortunes left by the richest 1 percent of Americans, to the rest of us, either through higher taxes, reduced services, or more borrowing (thus burdening future generations.) Repealing the estate tax would only benefit the super-rich… and to claim that such a move is intended to help family farmers is an out and out lie.

Neil E. Harl, an economics professor at Iowa State University whose expertise in estate tax planning for farmers has made him a household name in the grain belt, said many Americans had a false impression that the estate tax was destroying family farming.

He said the Congressional study “adds to the weight of the evidence that this is a myth that has been well spun.”

“Farms, in particular,” Mr. Harl said, “are not in jeopardy because of estate taxes.”

Michael J. Graetz, a professor at Yale Law School who was a tax policy official in the administration of President George Bush, said repeal was primarily a benefit to people with large estates held in stocks and other securities, not to farmers.

You can argue if you want about the wisdom of giving tax breaks to the very wealthy while our nation suffers from record budget deficits, but math is math.

President Bush and others have repeatedly asserted that the estate tax is destroying family farms, yet have failed to cite a single case of a farm being lost to estate taxes… “although in June 2001 Mr. Bush said he had talked to such farmers.” Yeah… but then, Bush is a liar.

Sen. Cantwell deserves our support for courageously opposing the lie, knowing it will cost her the support of the most powerful newspaper in the state.

UPDATE:
It has been suggested to me by a journalist I respect, that perhaps I have been a touch unfair. The Times did print an editorial stating they “can live with” a federal estate tax with a top rate of 15%, and they have in the past endorsed other candidates who oppose repeal. So I just want to set the record straight.